[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: serious bugs because of missing build depends



On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 02:14:35PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T024613+0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > According to Policy Section 2.4.2. Package relationships
> > Build-Depends only SHOULD be defined, Section 7 says the MAY
> > be defined.
> This section was written before the new SHOULD/MUST/MAY guidelines.
> The intention was that they MUST be defined and that the lines in control
> file SHOULD be omitted if they are empty.

When the MUST/SHOULD/MAY stuff was proposed, all the stuff in policy
was gone through and adjusted to have the correct meaning under the
new interpretation.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpnH1qr0Vxy_.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: